Issue - meetings

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN6)

This is a planning application to dispose of approximately 100m3 of subsoil and topsoil by spreading it on the application site to a depth of approximately 10cm. The waste arose from the digging of the foundations for the houses on the adjoining site. The site would  be restored as a wildflower meadow.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application no. MW.0021/15 be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

 i.          The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which Very Special Circumstances have not been shown. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy GS3 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan, policy CP13 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan Consultation Draft, policy W7 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, policy W5 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document and paragraph 6 of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

ii.          The proposal would result in disposal of waste on a green field site and other than at an existing landfill site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies W5 and W6 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document ,  policy W7 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan and paragraph 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

Agreed

Agreed

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to dispose of approximately 100m3 of subsoil and topsoil which had arisen from the digging of foundations for houses on an adjoining site by spreading it to a depth of approximately 10 cm and restoration to a wildflower meadow.

Introducing the report Mr Broughton highlighted a number of amendments; two of which had been highlighted on the addenda sheet and another in paragraph 14, line 1 where West Oxfordshire District Council should have read Vale of White Horse District Council.

He also referred to 2 late submissions. One from Lesley and Karim Sekkat and a second from Phillip Massey.

He then addressed a number of issues which had been raised including harm to the Green Belt from inappropriate development and the very special circumstances needed to be overcome in order to allow such development to take place. He had considered that those very special circumstances for a landfill development even on a small scale had not in this case been met.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Greene – the waste currently on site was the subject of enforcement action by the district council who were waiting on a decision with regard to this application before proceeding further.

Councillor Johnston – he was not certain of the size of the lorries which were intended to be used but suggested they would likely be the usual 15 tonne vehicles.

Councillor Bartholomew – he did not know the exact details of the enforcement action but it related to the existing bunds of spoil from the housing site. Councillor Johnston confirmed that the enforcement was unrelated to the matter currently before the Committee.

Councillor Handley – he confirmed that the application constituted development under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

Outlining the development Lynne Horn confirmed that the bund material had not come from the basement development neither had it been the intention to leave the material there. However, at a later date it had seemed reasonable to propose to spread the material in order to lessen disruption caused by its removal and also provide an opportunity to increase bio-diversity by planting a wildflower meadow.  The area of spread amounted to 10% of their field and any stones in the material would be used as part of the new build.  She recognised the need to protect the sanctity of the green belt but did not consider this to be inappropriate development nor a departure from the development plan and being small scale did not feel it would adversely affect the real purpose of the green belt nor cause harm to it. She did not consider approval would set a bad precedent as each application was different and should, in any event, be considered on merit and as the development would be for her and immediate members of her family she felt that guaranteed stewardship of the site.

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Cherry – vehicles would be required to dispose of the material in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20